Either A - Energy and Matter came from nothing at a given interval
Or B - Energy and Matter have always been around, living on thanks to chemsitry.

Well first of all, those are the only 2 options. The first option discribes all modern creationist theories and the big bang theory...."God created the heavans and the earth" - (something from nothing), and the big bang theory "at one moment all matter and energy exploded into our universe" - (something from nothing).
Or, throughout the infinal spanse of time that has, existed? so far....Planets become recycled into throbbing masses of matter when stars explode...or when the universe collapses. (The universe is getting bigger, at one point it may stop stretching and come back, compress everything. when everything is compressed, it will explode again)

I cant comprehend life coming to gether as it is explained in the text books. The chances of a DNA chain coming together through diffusion and random chemical processes are highly unlikely. But, there the moethod of genetic engineering, shooting the "gold gun" into a platter of bacteria...Its highly unlikely that in one instance the strain of dna on a microscopic piece of gold will combine with the dna in a bacteria...about 1 in a billion. But there is about 1 billion bacteria in the platter. Maybe the probability odds may be the same for this planet. (think of the billions of planets, galaxies and stars even that exist). The theory of evolution is a little iffy in my mind. I understand how a bacteria can evolve, but a species as a whole seems improbable to me. The dna may change from parent to offspring....But this change is not the same in every single human. how can humanity evolve slowly as a whole?
Aside from biological origins, I believe that there are two greater gods. There is a positive god (or cosmic force if you are more selective with words) and a negative god, or cosmic force. In mathematics, numbers go infinitely away from zero in two directions...Negative direction and Positive direction. In language, we have positive and negative speech, even the laws sink into our daily conversation. Two negatives make a positive. Chemically, the atom is bound by the 3 sub-atomic particles, the Proton (+), Electron (-), and the Neutron...which remains a neutral particle. And even in religion, you always see the protagonist cosmic figure, and the antagonistic cosmic figure. God and Satan, satan may not be a "god" but you can definitely see the point. Anubis and Rah, Odin and Loki, Zeus and Hades. All of them, even tribes in africa bear this trend of posotive and negative figures. I believe in karma. i trueley do. i dont care wether people have morals other than me, i belive that there is a moral guide we all need to follow. I feel, that according to my other beliefs dealing with polarity and positive and negative theory, An action will be met by an equal reaction of the same polarity. If you do something good, something good will come unto you. Im not the one to declare what is right and what is wrong, but some one who is Sane, and Rational, knows when they do something wrong. People need to take the bible not so literally, I respect christians myself, simply because of the morals that they abide by. The morals of the bible, i agree with. But i do not agree that a woman came from the rib of another man. The bible is taken to literally these days. Again, i apologise for the bible-slamming.

-Well, thats my rant! hope u like it.

Attachments:

State your age, please.

15

I disagree.

There is no such thing as nothing, for even in nothingness lies something, so long as you look hard enough to find it. The big bang expanded from something, but what that something was, we won't be able to say. (If it started from a single point, than before the big bang, we were zero-dimensional matter, which is absurd in our universe, so we probably came from another universe or something to that effect.) I also doubt the theory that the universe will one day contract, because the universe has never stopped expanding at the speed of light.

As for the origin of life, it depends greatly on what you consider alive. I personally agree for the most part with the Iron-Sulfur World Theory, in that DNA was probably not the first component of life that was synthesized. The first organisms were probably nothing more than bodiless functionalities that stimulated reactions in other molecules around them.

And in the case of a supreme dichotomy that presides over the universe. I think that is simply human ways of understanding things. We are the ones who think in terms of black and white, while in reality it is all shades of gray. We love simplifying things down into understandable meaning. There is no good or bad, except when dealing with something entirely internal. (So there is in fact good and bad when you judge another, as the decision is internal. But it is not a universal decision.)
To clarify this point, most people would agree that conserving the planets wildlife is a good thing, and setting up refuges where people are not allowed to move in and cut down the trees and destroy the habitat is a noble cause. Yet, what most people don't realize is that when these foundations set up national parks and prohibiting human development inside of them, these refuges displace millions of local subsistence livers in the region. The belief that setting up wildlife refuges protects wildlife is something that only applies to those of us who would otherwise cut them down.
For example, when Yosemite park opened up, it did so because the tribe of Indians there was forced to leave, by military forces burning their lands. This same situation occurs every time a park is set up, because no tribe or culture in the regions that we set aside have a say in the creation of the park.
This is something on a rather grand scale, but what about something as simple as washing your hands? By eliminating the bacteria from your skin, and encasing them in a molecular bubble, your increasing the chances that they will die. In fact many soaps now are antibacterial, and companies take pride in saying "kills 99.9% of germs." This action isn't considered bad, because the bacteria do not speak for themselves, and their pain is not visible.
My point is that because methods that generally are thought of as good do not account for all points of view, the ones who get no say in them are most likely hurt by such decisions. Therefor, so long as there exists life which cannot represent its opinion or gain sympathy by other individuals capable of defending them, than there can be no absolute good or evil.

Congratulations Rantent, You Stole Exactly What I Was Going To Say.

I'm glad he did, because I'm sure he said it better than you would have.

Um... Ok... Are you trying to be evil and depress me?

No, just stating facts.

Hey look it's devilesk.

No. Thus, your argument is invalid. I win.

You do not believe that you should abide by morals? Well, you think the law is the morals we should stand by? thal shalt not steal, thal shalt not kill...you dont think those are legitimate? People have regret. thats a fact, its a feeling that you get when you know you did something bad. There is a condition where you dont have morals, a mental state of being. it is abnormal, and its disgusting in my opinion. there was a case when a boy shoved rocks down another boys throat and killed him. You dont think that is "bad"? There is positive. There is negative. You seem extremely smart, smarter than I. or your older and know more than me. Either way, you seem to know what your talking about. You understand what a canion is and an anion is. positive and negative right? you dont believe that our chemistry, our chemical makeup is bound by the laws of polarity? our speech is, like i said. human religion is, like i said. I understand that you may not believe as i do, and that is your right. Please understand that i know im not right. I know im not wrong, its an opinion, a belief. this is not a scientific theory (my religion). Its not something to be tested to identify legitimacy, only to be discussed. So, if you have any further discussion PLEASE speak of it. i thank you VERY much for showing me that theory on the wiki. that was helpful and informative. if you have anything else to share please do. i enjoy this conversation.

and , uh, cheese? think about what i said more carefully. What other way is there? Someting from nothing, or everything forever. I havent picked a side yet, im still in debate with myself. Those are seriously the only ways. Its possible for the universe to have existed forever, its probable, i cant imagine it, thats why i lean towards the something-from nothing when i doubt....but really, its either one or the other. i havent decided. And even if i do decide, it doesnt mean im right, its just my opinion...wich really is of no signifigance. lol. Oh, someone, i got a Q. how do i make more minerals?

Just for your information, the "big bang theory" does NOT say that everything came from nothing. Instead, it says that before the big bang everything (all energy, including matter) already existed in a singularity. The 'big bang' is the event of that singularity expanding. Note that there is no 'explosion' because that would mean that the singularity would be somewhere inside a space, which it was not. Instead it 'expanded', meaning that the singularity became bigger, transforming energy into space.
Also note that the big bang theory does not state anything about how or when the singularity became.

I told you guys, ignore my first part. thats not my RELIGION. thats just how i feel about things. My theory of dominant polarity is what im talking about. this is not an argument folks, its a discussion.

w00t, hey guys. im only 14, about to be 15. (i know i said i was 15 srry). im not the one to best describe what you seem to want to debate about. www.drdino.com - do to the downloads page and download a seminar. I would suggest either "lies in the textbooks" or, "age of the earth" Kent hovind is a creationist... and he talks about jesus and stuff alot, unfortunately. But he does make good SCIENTIFIC points. he taught highschool science for 15 years, he has something to say. just watch him, hes really funny too. If you have more to discuss please let it be on the topic of my religion...Dominant Polarity...

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 10 2008, 12:09 am by Dapperdan. Reason: Combining a Triple post into one

Creationists can't make good scientific points. Period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Should I go on?

ROFL KENT HOVIND

The moment I saw that it reminded me of this video I saw pretty recently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss&feature=related

He's a moron.

And you all continue to fight what i said... No one comments on my religion. my goodness....

and um, cheese? as for those links, none of them contradict what i have origionally said about universal origins man. dude, im not icking a side on this. im just saying that those are the only 2 options, something from nothing, or everything forever. pick one. you can name god any name you want to.... but any way you spin it a religion that says that a god....or flying spaghetti monster if you will... made everything its something from nothing.

So you're limiting yourself? Why would you limit yourself to those two options? It doesn't matter whether or not you can think of anything else (or me for that matter), it's whether or not you'll even consider other options. Which you obviously won't.

I feel sorry for you midget. You write out long paragraphs of statements, putting your thoguhts out there the best you can, and would like to see the same in return. Instead you get quick smartass one-liners from us. I'm disapointed in my fellow agnostics.